SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(SC) 480

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
AJAY RASTOGI, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, JJ.
Atulbhai Vithalbhai Bhanderi - Appellant
Versus
State Of Gujarat - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.1390 of 2023 (@ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.10051 of 2022)
Decided on : 04-05-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. E. C. Agrawala, AOR, Mr. Sunil Murarka, Adv., Mr. Ankur Saigal, Adv., Mr. Gunnam Venkantewara Rao, Adv., Ms. S. Lakshmi Iyer, Adv., Ms. Anwesha Padhi, Adv., Ms. Nitya Ramakrishnan, Sr. Adv., Mr. Pradhuman Gohil, Adv., Mrs. Taruna Singh Gohil, AOR, Ms. Ranu Purohit, Adv., Mr. Alapati Sahithya Krishna, Adv., Ms. Nidhi Mittal, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. S. V. Raju, A.S.G., Mr. Ankit Bhatia, Adv., Ms. Madhumitha Kesavan, Adv., Mr. Hitaith Raja, Adv., Mr. Harsh Paul, Adv., Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, AOR, Ms. Sairica Raju, Adv., Mr. Annam Venkatesh, Adv., Ms. Devyani Bhatt, Adv., Mr. Praveen Kumar Singh, Adv.

IMPORTANT POINT
Bail cannot be granted to a person involved in terrorism and organized crimes.

Headnote:

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 439 – Bail – Refusal – Appellant, along with others, is accused for offences punishable under Sections 3(1), 3(2), 3(3), 3(4) and 3(5) and 4 of Gujarat Control of Terrorism and Organized Crimes Act, 2015 read with Sections 384, 385, 386, 387, 506(1), 506(2), 507, 201, 120B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Had there been no other case against Appellant and no material, at least prima facie, to indicate his regular participation in any crime, Court could have considered his prayer, but keeping in view his alleged role, Court not inclined to exercise discretion in his favour, for now – Fact that out of twelve charge-sheeted accused, six co-accused have not been granted bail, five have availed benefit of default bail and only one is on regular bail, have also persuaded this Court not to interfere – Prayer for bail rejected – Appellant given liberty to renew his plea for bail upon completion of recording of statements of protected witnesses. (Paras 9, 10, 13, 14 and 15)

Facts of the case:

Present Appeal is directed against the Final Judgment and Order dated 07.09.2022 passed by High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 22475 of 2021, by which prayer for release of the Appellant on bail has been dismissed.

Findings of Court:

Upon completion of recording of statements of the said protected witnesses, the Appellant is at liberty to renew his plea for bail, if so advised.

Result : Appeal disposed of with directions.

JUDGMENT :

Leave granted.

2. The present Appeal is directed against the Final Judgment and Order dated 07.09.2022 (hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Judgment”) passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as the “High Court”) in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 22475 of 2021, by which the prayer for release of the Appellant on bail has been dismissed.

THE FACTUAL PRISM:

3. The Appellant, along with others, is accused in FIR Cr No.I-11202008202186 of 2020 registered with the “A” Division Police Station, Jamnagar in the State of Gujarat for offences punishable under Sections 3(1), 3(2), 3(3), 3(4) and 3(5) and 4 of the Gujarat Control of Terrorism and Organised Crime Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the “GCTOC Act”) read with Sections 384, 385, 386, 387, 506(1), 506(2), 507, 201, 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the “IPC”). The Appellant is arrayed as accused No.4 in the said FIR and is said to be involved in intimidating and threatening the victim in connivance with the main accused no.1 Jaysukh @ Jayesh Muljibhai Ranpara (Patel), running an organised crime syndicate for the purpose, with the intention to extort money and in land-grabbing by threatening people at large. As per the FIR details, 59 cases are registered against the said accused no.1. It is alleged that the Appellant threatened the victim and concerned witnesses to cancel the land deal pertaining to survey No.961 or to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/-(Rupees One Crore) to the Appellant, which they refused. The allegation against the accused no.1 is of threatening the victim. The role of the appellant is that he was involved in intimidating and threatening the victim on behalf of the accused no.1 for ensuring the victim’s compliance with the extortion demands. It is alleged that the appellant owns properties derived from funds of organised crimes. Further, it is alleged that from the enquiry, it is revealed that the Appellant was directly involved in collecting the sum(s) extorted from the victim in the city, and that he has also been found to be involved in passing on information which is likely to assist the crime syndicate in its activities, thereby abetting the actions of the gang.

SUBMISSIONS BY THE APPELLANT:

4. Learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that there are eight other First Information Reports in which he has been charge-sheeted, out of the which seven are prior to the year 2015 and one is of the year 2019. It was contended that the section(s), under which the FIR in question has been lodged, do not indicate his involvement in any organised crime. And thus, without any basis, he has been made an accused in the present case.

5. Learned counsel further submitted that as per the allegations made in the FIR, the Appellant had arranged a telephonic talk between the accused no.1, the complainant as well as one Bhagwanjibhai Kanjariya; that upon the complainant neither cancelling the deed of the plot nor paying the purported extortion amount of Rs. 1,00,00,000/-(Rupees One Crore), the Appellant along with the accused no.1 hatched a conspiracy and sent six persons to the residence of the complainant and they fired three rounds of bullets. This, according to learned counsel, is false. As per the submission, the four persons who gave the complaint before the police, on the very next day of the FIR being lodged, had stated that the Appellant did not make any telephonic call to the accused no.1. Learned counsel drew the attention of this Court to the Judgment in State of Gujarat v Sandip Omprakash Gupta, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1727 dated 15.12.2022, the relevant portions being Paragraphs No. 49, 56 and 57, which has reiterated the dictum laid down by this Court in State of Maharashtra v Shiva alias Shivaji Ramaji Sonawane, (2015) 14 SCC 272, which stipulates that the offence of “organised crime” could be said to have been constituted by at least one incident of continuation apart from continuin


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top